[AFPhys]

I have no idea where the "perfect neutron bomb" concept came from. To the best of my knowledge and expertise, it has no relationship to reality. In the past, I've contacted some buddies who would know to reassure myself of that (but they wouldn't be able to verify classified). There IS data about U.S. tests of EHRs, but nothing remotely close to a "kills people but not infrastructure" weapon.

I have a feeling that this perfect "neutron bomb" was invented by some science fiction writer, though. Certainly, some anti-war movement types have used it to suggest we're going to conduct a war for imperialistic purposes with our "neutron bomb" to steal some nation's infrastructure and resources. For the most part, it seems that uninformed people simply keep propagating the myth.

I related to you in my post what my best research and best interpolation of the available data has revealed to me.

I'm open to other data, and crave it, but in more than six years of responding to posts such as yours, no one has disputed my interpretation of the available data.

[Captain Rhino]

I'm certainly in no position to dispute what you say.

What I put down in my last post were (to the best of my recollection) the supposed characteristics of the weapon that were discussed in the open press when it's existence was first revealed under President Carter in the late 1970s. Yes, there was a lot of strong anti-capitalist, anti-imperialism, and anti-war movement reaction to this new type of weapon at that time. IIRC, a lot of "first strike" rhetoric blew around until the administration mumbled some "no first use" verbage and things simmered down.

I did a web search a year or two ago on numbers and found reports that there were roughly 100 of these weapons still in US inventory. Since these and all nuclear weapons require maintenance, whether or not they are still any good is not publicly available knowledge (as it should be).

Picking up on your science fiction illusion, if they were as good as initially reported, there would probably be a lot more in inventory. If, however, you get tactical complications and still have significant infrastructure damage maybe it is better to just use the standard nukes. Then you stay off a potential slippery slope ("Yes, its a nuke, but it's sort of a decaf nuke.") and retain the horror of what they can do to act as a bright line (or cliff) to motivate you to do everything you can to keep them in their bunkers and silos.

[Dan Evans]

Certainly, some anti-war movement types have used it to suggest we're going to conduct a war for imperialistic purposes with our "neutron bomb" to steal some nation's infrastructure and resources.

It was during the Reagan administration that the neutron bomb got its reputation. The bomb was being considered as a deterrent to an invasion of Warsaw Pact tanks in Europe because it would minimize collateral damage of adjacent villages. Leftist propagandists turned that around and portrayed the neutron bomb as the "capitalist bomb" because it supposedly destroyed people but left the buildings standing.